Trial By State | Trending Ep294

 Labour wants to bring an end to jury trials and give more power to the state in a dangerous precedent. Digital ID is planned to be used in much more areas than 'originally planned' according to new reports. Finally life after death is being questioned by mainstream science.

You can watch the full episode FOR FREE over on https://ickonic.com/Watch/3732

Link to our sponsor: https://tzla.club/

You can also subscribe to Ickonic to receive…

-  New Content Daily
-  Feature-Length Documentaries
-  Exclusive Original Series

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Wednesday's episode of Trending. Right, we're gonna talk about three very, very different stories today, but all tie in to the same thing. It's either suppressing knowledge or it's trying to suppress dissent or it's trying to silence people questioning the narrative. So we're gonna talk about jury trials here in the UK. We're gonna talk about digital ID, which I know people have relaxed and think it's gone away. It hasn't. And we're gonna talk about life after death. Now, you those three things may appear completely unconnected, and in isolation they are. However, it all ties together. So we're gonna start by talking about jury trials here, because jury trials, or as they call it, a trial by members of your peers, other members of the community who objectively decide whether somebody is guilty or somebody is innocent. That's been a long-standing tradition right across the world, but particularly in the West. And the whole point of jury trials is to prevent bias, is to allow people with no skin in the game, no allegiance to the system or not the system to decide whether somebody is guilty or innocent in high-profile cases where people are looking at long, long sentences. Now, I've never been on a jury, and I'm sure a lot of people that are watching have. I imagine it's a very, very difficult process because I remember a few years ago a friend of mine was on a trial to do with a child who had who had died, um, and they were talking about one of the parents uh either murder or manslaughter, and and I can't imagine how difficult that that must be to be on that trial, to hear that information, and also to have that responsibility of making such a decision. But they're such they they are they are there as fail-safes, okay. Now, post the riots a few a couple of years ago up in Southport and obviously spread across the country, we saw a number of very high-profile, quick cases where a single judge, you know, the idiot that appeared on telly was seen handing out incredible sentences to people, some for violence, some for simply saying a few things online. Okay, so we're dealing with a situation where sentences are being handed out on one person say so. And a sentence changes somebody's life. It also changes society because once a sentence is handed out for something, there is obviously then a precedent set for how that is going to be handled again in future, in a different scenario, and also it changes somebody's life because people have families, people have jobs, people have children, people have partners, all of which is thrown up in the air when people are put away for a certain period of time. Obviously, the longer they're put away for, the more that's impacted. But even if somebody said to you now you're in prison for three months, three months from not having your job, you could lose your job, three months of not seeing your partner, three months of not seeing your children. You're gonna miss things. You could miss holidays, you could miss birthdays, you could miss births, you could miss deaths, you could miss so many important things. So it's obviously it's a very, very big, big thing deciding whether somebody goes to prison or not. Now, here in the UK, there's been talks for quite a while now of getting rid of jury trials. The current justice minister and deputy prime minister, and famously one of the thickest men in Britain, David Lamy, has been calling for an end to jury trials, saying that because of the backlogging cases, getting rid of them would allow them to expedite things and deal with these cases quicker. Now, you can look at that from two perspectives. You can look at it on the surface and say, okay, in a short-term scenario, doing that will remove the backlog. Okay, you're dealing with one problem or what you see as a problem. But on the flip side of that, if you're rushing these cases to get through, is every one of those people awaiting trial going to get a fair trial? Probably not. For two reasons. One, they're no longer having a jury trial, they're going to be having a judge, which is a single person who is owned and works for the state. Although they try and claim it's separate, they obviously work for the state. And also, there's going to be less time and due diligence put into deciding whether that person is guilty or not. It's left to a judge. It's not left to a number of people, all who are objective, who can sit and discuss and throw around ideas and suggestions and have back and forths and look at things from different perspectives based on other people's opinions. You don't have any of that. So as a result, the chance of more objective, sorry, subjective views, I would suggest is quite higher. So I think this is a very, very dangerous precedent because you can look at it one way and say, okay, they're going to get rid of the backlog. But we both know when the system wants something, it will sell it in a way that people think is palatable first. So if they say this is going to be a short-term thing to get rid of the backlog, people may some people will buy into that based on the narrative that once the backlog is cleared, it'll go back to how it was. Well, very rarely does that happen. Invariably, when something new comes out, if they get what they want out of it and the resistance from people is not particularly high, then that becomes the new status quo, that becomes the new normal. And getting rid of jury trials for two reasons is absolutely part of the agenda. So the two reasons they want to get rid of them are they want to get rid of objective situations where members of the public who have no skin in the game have a say on whether somebody goes down or whether somebody doesn't. They want a state asset making that decision. So removing the juries, the people that are just everyday people walking down the street, removing that creates the situation where you have a judge which is a state asset. And the second one, which we've seen discussed very uh prominently, is the AI judges. That's another aspect. Now they'll they'll use the sales pitch of cost, they'll use the sales pitch of convenience and speed when talking about AI judges, because an AI judge is not going to sit and take two weeks to make a decision on something, it'll probably just make it right there and then. But again, what do both those situations give you? They give you huge opportunities for a miscarriage of justice, they give huge opportunities for the wrong person to be sent down, or for somebody to be sent down for something that is so ridiculous, like harmful words online, for example. You've got a situation where when do you decide what you persecu what you prosecute and when do you decide what you're not? Because if you get to the point that we live in a society where you cannot speak online because somebody will find what you're saying offensive, or somebody will find your words hurtful, then you then have your George Orwell society, which is obviously what they want. That's why they're suppressing more and more. Now, online speech, there's a difference between saying you don't like somebody, saying you don't like something, or even saying something abhorrent like you wish this happened to somebody. There's a difference between that, and now I wouldn't I wouldn't wish anybody evil. I wouldn't be sat there saying, Oh, I wish you were dead, but I know people would, and people have said that to me. I don't find that a problem. There's a difference if somebody posted and said this guy lives here, we should all go and kill him. That's different because that's a call for violence, and there is already laws to protect against things like that. So the idea of creating new ones makes no sense. Now, the reason that this this judge situation, this jury situation is becoming more and more prominent in people's minds is because of the the fact that following those riots, which is why I mentioned the online arrests, there was massive, massive accusations and justifiable accusations of a two-tier justice system where certain people get dealt with in a certain way and other people get dealt with in a certain way. You had Lucy Connolly who tweeted obviously some some silly things that she shouldn't have said, and she did apologize very quickly. She went to prison. You had the Labour counsellor who called in front of a crowd of people that were recording to slit the throats of people who were protesting against Islam and against immigration. He got a fine. He didn't go to jail, he didn't see the inside of a jail cell whatsoever. Okay? Now, those two situations are, I would say his situation's more severe because he was in a crowd of people that were right next to another crowd of people who had opposing views to them. The opportunity for violence immediately within seconds of him saying that was incredibly high. Lucy Connolly said something on Twitter. Both shouldn't have happened. Okay? One got dealt with one way, one got dealt with another way. So it's understandable why people say there is a two-tier system. And if you then have a state asset in a judge, or you have an AI judge, and AI is obviously programmed by somebody creating these outcomes, then all of a sudden you're gonna have a much, much, much more two-tiered system because the state's narrative and the state's desired outcome is gonna be the case in every single legal situation. Whereas at the moment, in theory, now juries can be manipulated, juries can be bought off, juries can be intimidated and threatened, and that's obviously happened in the past as well. But in theory, the principle of jury trials is that a jury of your peers, members of the public who are in exactly the same position as the person standing trial, in terms of they are everyday regular people, they have an objective view on whether somebody is guilty or not. They can look at all the evidence dispassionately with objectivity, and they can come to either a unanimous consensus on whether somebody is guilty or innocent, or they may obviously not be able to do that, in which case the evidence, if a jury can't come to a unanimous agreement, then that usually would suggest that the evidence is not absolutely watertight. Because if it was, you know, you most people would probably obviously agree on it. The fact that they that sometimes they don't, and you have a split jury, would suggest that evidence is not always watertight, in which case you've probably got to ear onto the side of innocence, and that will probably mean some people slip through the net. But I suppose your question you would want to ask, and I'm not necessarily concluding what I think, I'm I'm I'm open to either. Is would you rather a few people that were guilty got away with stuff because the system was so meticulous when putting somebody away, or would you rather a few innocent people ended up in jail because the system is slightly less meticulous? I know which way I'd go, and I know people will have an opinion on both sides because I don't think there's a necessarily 100% right answer. You could sit there and say, Well, what if it's a murderer that's on the street? What if it's a rapist that's on the street? I get that argument completely. But then on the flip side, what if it's a really lovely father of four who's done nothing wrong, who's got a life sentence while watching, and his kids are going to grow up without a parent, his wife's gonna move on, he's lost everything. Is that fair either? Uh obviously it's not. So there's not a right answer and a wrong answer. However, jury trials are meant to be the fail-safe to prevent the second part of that happening, which is innocent people going down. And of course, there will always be errors because there will always be the manipulation of information at times. But putting all of that responsibility in the hands of either an actual judge that is owned by the state or an AI judge that is programmed by the state, the potential for miscarriage of justice, as I've said, is enormous. And it's very clear why they're doing this. They're doing this because they want the state's narrative to be the one that is adhered to. If the state sees somebody as a threat, they want the right and the ability to get rid of that person very easily. And if they want the state target somebody to either be silenced or put away, they want the state to be able to do that without jury trials and things like that getting in the way. So, this I would say is another form of you know digital ID, if you like, that we're going to talk about in a minute, where it's something we need to push back on, it's something that we need to refuse to accept. There's a lot of them at the moment, there certainly is. Because, you know, justice is a very, very broad term and it's a very, very important term. Because not only do we need to talk about this from the perspective that the system will try and silence people that it stands up against it, is this same justice system is used to try people and bring justice to people who are part of the system. Whether that be your savils and people like that, if they had been still alive today, they would have been facing justice through this legal system. Now, if that legal system is completely owned by the state, how are they gonna do that? People like Andrew, formerly Prince Andrew, they should be facing justice through this legal system. Well, at the moment, if you put him in front of a jury, they would find him guilty in 30 seconds because the evidence is overwhelming that that man has got many skeletons in the closet. Well, if it's a judge or an AI judge who are owned by the state and the state is owned by the king, is it gonna be objective in the same way? Are people who have done these things, our former prime ministers like Tony Blair, when they eventually have full confidence, face justice for their war crimes, will the system find them guilty? Well, I know a jury would, but would the system? And that's what we must hold on to. That's why we must hold on to this, and why we must absolutely push back on this. And the good thing is, David Lamy is the salesman for it. David Lamy, who couldn't get his way out of a room filled with doors, he's one of the thickest men you could possibly meet. He's absolutely famous for it. He was famous for it years before he was involved in the cabinet, and he's certainly famous for it now. You've only got to hear the guy speak. So the good thing to take away from this this morning is if the man stood in front of cameras selling this concept to you is David Lamy. Lots more people will see through this and start to ask some questions because the guy can barely string together a coherent sentence. So that's a positive to take away, right? Right, we're gonna carry on in iconic.com. We're gonna talk about digital ID and we're gonna talk about life after death after an interesting story has come out in the Wall Street Journal today. I'll see you on iconic.com.

SPEAKER_01 15:32

Don't mention the rips about those days. Even less said about the paper, who some believe to be the true ruling power in the Vatican. All of them have political sickness. I've never seen it before. It's a transition. This is the ultimate suicide. The symbols are rambling as every day are just ornamental.